IRAHETA v. HOUSTON COUNTY

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia
DecidedJuly 26, 2021
Docket5:21-cv-00104
StatusUnknown

This text of IRAHETA v. HOUSTON COUNTY (IRAHETA v. HOUSTON COUNTY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
IRAHETA v. HOUSTON COUNTY, (M.D. Ga. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION JOSE D. IRAHETA, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON COUNTY; CULLEN TALTON; CIVIL ACTION NO. SOUTHERN CORRECTIONAL 5:21-cv-00104-TES MEDICINE LLC; CITY OF WARNER ROBINS; SACAL ENVIRONMENTAL & MANAGEMENT COMPANY; and JOHN DOE (1 thru 20) Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER1

I n his Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 24], Plaintiff Jose D. Iraheta alleges that Defendant Sacal Environmental & Management Company (“Sacal”) violated his constitutional rights by demolishing his property pursuant to a contract that the corporation made with the City of Warner Robins. [Doc. 24, ¶¶ 3, 141, 217, 219]. On July 23, 2021, the Court received a filing signed by Defendant Sacal’s president that was styled as a responsive pleading to the Second Amended Complaint. [Doc. 39]. However, Defendant’s president is not a licensed attorney admitted to practice law in either the

1 The Court VACATES its previous Order [Doc. 45] and replaces it with this Order to amend the filing date from “July 30, 2021,” to today’s date, July 26, 2021. Thus, Defendant Sacal has 21 days from July 26, Middle District of Georgia or the State of Georgia. Therefore, upon receipt of Defendant Sacal’s pleading, Plaintiff moved to strike it from the record because it was not filed by

a licensed attorney. See [Doc. 40]. It has long been true that a corporation or other artificial entity cannot appear in federal court unless it is represented by counsel. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony,

506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel[.].”); see also Order, Gibson v. TMS Collections Servs., LLC and Gaye-Nola Burton, No. 5:19-cv-

00440-TES (M.D. Ga. Jan. 15, 2020), ECF No. 9. This rule applies “even where the person seeking to represent the corporation is its president and major stockholder.” Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, Defendant Sacal must obtain legal counsel in order to defend itself in this action.

Therefore, the Court DIRECTS Defendant Sacal to obtain appropriate legal counsel who must file any responsive pleading on the corporation’s behalf within 21 days from the date of this Order. The Court will not consider any documents filed on

behalf of Defendant Sacal that are not submitted by its legal counsel. And, as one final note, the Court advises Defendant Sacal that if fails to submit an appropriate pleading through counsel, then the Court may strike its Answer for noncompliance. SO ORDERED, this 26th day of July, 2021. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
IRAHETA v. HOUSTON COUNTY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iraheta-v-houston-county-gamd-2021.